TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Nuclear Industry (Decommissioning)

Patricia Hewitt: The Government's updated policy on the decommissioning of the UK's nuclear facilities has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The statement is also available on the DTI website at: www.dti.gov.uk.

HOME DEPARTMENT

"Policing: Building Safer Communities Together"

Hazel Blears: I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the results from the consultation paper "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together".
	On 4 November 2003 a major consultation on police reform was launched with the publication of the above paper. A shorter questionnaire version aimed at the general public was also published on 27 February 2004. These documents set out the Government's vision for the future of police reform and posed a series of questions on how to achieve this. We want to build a modernised, truly representative police service which is more visible and accessible and which delivers core national standards of policing to all communities within a framework which enables forces to respond to local priorities.
	The response to the consultation was very encouraging and the clear message received was that, while there are areas in which debate and discussion will continue, we are heading in the right direction. In particular there was a strong appetite for greater community engagement, more visible and accessible policing and giving local people a greater say in determining local community safety priorities.
	Additional copies of the consultation results, and the original consultation paper and questionnaire are available on the police reform website www.policereform.gov.uk.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Independent Reviewer)

David Blunkett: Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has agreed to continue in his role as independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000 for a further three years.
	I am grateful to Lord Carlile in accepting this invitation.

HEALTH

Blood Donation and vCJD

John Reid: Following my statements to the House on 17 December 2003 and 16 March 2004 concerning variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) and blood, I wish to provide an update on some further developments in this area.
	My statement on 17 December 2003 informed the House of the first case of possible transmission of vCJD via blood transfusion and the precautionary actions taken. Those actions included measures to protect future blood supplies and contacting recipients of blood from donors who subsequently went on to develop vCJD. A further written statement on 22 July 2004 indicated a second case of possible vCJD prion transmission via blood transfusion had been confirmed.
	I also made reference in December to the fact that other patients, including people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders, would have received plasma products before they were sourced from the United States of America. Although there are now two reports of possible transmission of vCJD via blood, the risk of transmission via plasma products, which will have been derived from large pools of plasma donated from many thousands of people—and therefore heavily diluted—is uncertain. But it cannot be excluded. The CJD incident panel (CJDIP) was asked to advise on a case-by-case basis (having adopted a highly precautionary approach) which recipients of plasma products will need to be contacted. This advice has been received and a programme of action has been agreed.
	In June 2004 the Health Protection Agency (HPA), on behalf of the CJD incident panel, reported on an assessment of the risk associated with each batch of product and advised my Department on:
	which patients needed to be assessed and possibly subsequently contacted, and
	managing the possible risk to public health of those patients.
	In the light of these assessments, the HPA is today initiating a process to notify relevant patients of these developments. The HPA is sending information to clinicians to enable them to trace particular plasma products. The clinicians will then notify any patients identified as "at risk" as a precaution. Any patients affected should expect to be contacted by clinicians later this month.
	Aside from patients with haemophilia or other bleeding disorders, the other main group of patients who may have received significant amounts of affected blood products are patients with primary immuno-deficiency (PID).
	Throughout this exercise we have been concerned to ensure that the results of the risk assessment are communicated to patients by the clinicians responsible for their day-to-day care, so that appropriate supporting information can be provided. Further details about the risk assessment exercise will not be disclosed until after patients are informed of the outcome. I will make a further statement at a later date, if necessary.

Richard Neale

John Reid: The report of the committee of inquiry into how the National Health Service handled allegations about the conduct of Richard Neale (Cm 6315) was published today and copies have been placed in the Library. This is one of the three inquiries announced in July 2001 by my right hon. Friend, Alan Milburn, the then Secretary of State for Health. The other two inquiries were to consider how the NHS handled allegations about the conduct of Clifford Ayling, a former GP; and William Kerr and Michael Haslam, former psychiatrists.
	The Government would like to thank the chairman of the inquiry, Her Honour Judge Suzan Matthews QC and the two members of her panel, Christine Funnell and Derek Caldwell, for their thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the appointments and employment of Richard Neale in the NHS. Their hard work in bringing together the relevant issues and their sympathy and understanding in dealing with them is very much appreciated. The Government would also like to thank the secretariat and legal team who provided such excellent support for the review.
	The Government are very grateful to the former patients of Richard Neale who chose to provide evidence to the inquiry, and to Richard Neale's former colleagues and other witnesses who also gave evidence, all of whom generously gave their time to assist the inquiry.
	If we are to learn the lessons when things go wrong we must ensure that systems are in place which have the confidence of patients who wish to raise concerns. All patients have the right to expect a high standard of care from clinicians. Richard Neale fell short of these standards and as a result caused the patients in his care unnecessary distress. I should like to extend my sympathies to all those patients involved who suffered in this way.
	The NHS failed many of Richard Neale's former patients and the inquiry has provided the opportunity not only for their voices to be heard, but also to ensure that their experiences will help strengthen the systems now in place to try to prevent similar incidents in the future.
	The report sets out in detail the history of Richard Neale's appointments in Canada and his subsequent employment in the UK. It charts the system failures that allowed him to be employed as a consultant without a proper understanding of his background; and a mixture of similar failures coupled with complacency that permitted him to continue practising in spite of concerns being raised about him.
	Since these events have come to light, we have taken a number of steps to help avoid similar incidents in the future. In setting out details of the failures over many years, the inquiry found that
	" . . . even before the inquiry began many of the wider lessons had been learnt and change implemented".
	The NHS has indeed been subject to considerable changes over the past few years, many having the specific aim of improving the patient experience, especially patient safety. But we are not complacent and we recognise the need for further improvements. The inquiry's conclusions and recommendations, together with those of the Clifford Ayling inquiry also published today, will help us to ensure that the patient experience is properly at the centre of our work in the NHS.
	Many of the recommendations made by this inquiry are concerned with improvements in way that complaints are handled by the NHS. These include ensuring that patients have both sufficient and correct information about their treatment to inform their decisions as well as strengthening the role of the Patient Advisory Liaison Service (PALS) to support patients who have concerns, and some of this work is already underway. Issues around complaints are also being considered by the Shipman inquiry, which is likely to produce recommendations in its Fifth Report due later this year. They are also being considered by the William Kerr/Michael Haslam inquiry, whose report is also expected later this year. We will therefore consider these recommendations together with those of the Shipman, Clifford Ayling and William Kerr/Michael Haslam inquiries and give a detailed response in due course.
	In the meantime, the Government will consider very carefully the other recommendations concerning the appointment and employment of consultants and doctors in other grades, as well as the role of the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals (now known as the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence), and will respond to these as soon as we can.
	We have made clear that patient safety is a priority and the UK has led the way in pushing forward in this area. Tomorrow, I will be talking to fellow EU health ministers about the lessons EU members can learn from one another and make clear that patient safety will be a key issue during the UK presidency of the EU next year.
	This inquiry has provided a valuable insight into a series of errors over a long period of time in the appointment processes and in Richard Neale's employment performance. It has painstakingly identified the causes of those errors and has made helpful recommendations about how best to avoid repeating them. We will review the improvements we have made in the past few years to ensure that they address the concerns raised in the report. The Government are grateful to all those whose contributions to the review will help us fulfil our commitment to patient safety.

Clifford Ayling

John Reid: The report of the committee of inquiry into how the National Health Service handled allegations about the conduct of Clifford Ayling (Cm 6298) is being published today and copies have been placed in the Library. This is one of the three inquiries announced in July 2001 by my right hon. Friend, Alan Milburn, the then Secretary of State for Health. The other two inquiries were to consider how the NHS handled allegations about the conduct of Richard Neale, a former gynaecologist; and William Kerr and Michael Haslam, former psychiatrists.
	The Government would like to thank Dame Anna Pauffley, the chairman of the inquiry, and the two members of her panel, Peter Berman and Mary Whitty, for their delicate handling of undoubtedly sensitive issues. Their report is painstakingly researched and provides in clear detail a history of events in the NHS that led, in December 2000, to Clifford Ayling's conviction on 12 counts of indecent assault. It charts the procedures then in place through which patients could raise concerns about their treatment; and the failures in those systems that let down many of Clifford Ayling's patients so badly. The Government are very grateful to Dame Anna and her panel for producing such a comprehensive report and to the secretariat and legal team for their tremendous support.
	The Government are also grateful to those former patients of Clifford Ayling who came forward and provided evidence to the inquiry which must, at times, have been very difficult and painful. The systems in place in the NHS to help and support these patients who raised concerns about Clifford Ayling's behaviour and treatment let them down. No patient should be left in a position where those in charge of their care are able to abuse their trust and take advantage. My sympathies go to the patients involved in this case. They will have the benefit of knowing that their evidence will help to ensure that better and more robust systems will be put in place to avoid similar incidents in the future.
	Similarly, the evidence provided by former colleagues was clearly very important to the inquiry in determining how the systems worked, or failed. Their candour in giving evidence is very much appreciated.
	Since these events have come to light, we have taken a number of steps to help avoid similar incidents in the future and the report itself recognises that considerable change has taken place in the NHS since Clifford Ayling practised, concluding . . .
	"The impact of the Government's plans and investment in health services has dramatically altered the landscape of the NHS. At an organisational level, it is almost unrecognisable as the NHS in which Ayling practised. The emphasis on patient safety, remedial action for poor clinical performance, closer scrutiny of untoward events and empowering patients in the management of services are greatly welcomed."
	The changes introduced in recent years have already sought to address the weaknesses found by the inquiry as being a cause for concern. For this reason the inquiry has directed its recommendations towards strengthening the systems now in place rather than offering new or alternative proposals for action.
	The Government welcome the recommendations in the report which include proposals both to address the issue of sexualised behaviour and to ensure that guidance is available for dealing with it; and that all trusts and primary care practices should have an explicit policy on the use of chaperones. These are important issues that will require detailed consideration if changes are to be implemented effectively. Likewise, the role of patient advocacy when dealing with 'sexualised behaviour' in both the hospital and the primary care setting will also require further detailed consideration.
	The report acknowledges that considerable changes have already been made. These include substantial changes to the NHS complaints procedure and the current development of guidance to trusts on how to handle untoward incidents. Further changes are in hand and planned.
	It recommends improvements to the recording of complaints against individual practitioners and the importance of co-ordinating complaints, coupled with the need to ensure that employers are aware of other employment being undertaken by their medical staff.
	Other recommendations include requiring staff of NHS trusts and other healthcare organisations employing staff, such as deputising services, to declare concurrent employment and for this requirement to be suitably adapted to ensure that PCTs are kept informed of other professional work undertaken by GPs; the provision of better support for single-handed practitioners and their practice managers; and clarification of the roles of the respective professional and local bodies in primary care.
	The Department of Health is also asked to develop a memorandum of understanding with professional regulatory bodies and the Crown Prosecution Service; and to work with strategic health authorities to provide guidance to trusts on handling untoward incidents.
	Issues around complaints are also being considered by the Shipman inquiry, which is likely to produce recommendations in its fifth report due later this year. They are also being considered by the William Kerr/Michael Haslam inquiry whose report is also expected later this year. We will therefore consider these recommendations together with those of the Shipman, Neale and William Kerr/Michael Haslam inquiries and give a detailed response in due course.
	The Department of Health is asked to take account of the inquiry's recommendations in the development of its current work on a memorandum of understanding with the NHS, the police and the Health and Safety Executive. We shall of course ensure that the report and its recommendations are brought to the attention of the project board taking this work forward. As part of this work, guidance is currently being developed for the NHS including a strategy for involving patients and others.
	Our purpose in setting up this inquiry, as with all investigations of errors in the NHS, is to learn the lessons and put in place procedures to minimise the risk of similar errors occurring in the future. As already indicated, much work has already been done and further work is in hand. We very much welcome this report and its recommendations, and those of the Richard Neale inquiry also published today, with their emphasis on putting patients at the centre of health care. These reports will provide an important contribution to a continuing process of improvement.
	We have made clear that patient safety is a priority and the UK has led the way in pushing forward in this area. Tomorrow, I will be talking to fellow EU health ministers about the lessons EU members can learn from one another and make clear that patient safety will be a key issue during the UK presidency of the EU next year.
	It is completely unacceptable that the events described in this report were allowed to happen. In acting on the inquiry's recommendations we will be guided by the need to prevent future patients having to suffer in the same way as many patients of Clifford Ayling.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Libya: Future Defence Requirements

Bill Rammell: On 19 December 2003, Libya announced that it would dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programmes, and limit its ballistic missiles to a range of less than 300km. Since then, Libya has been working to put these commitments into effect, and has been pursuing a course of reintegration into the international community. The Government welcome and fully supports this process.
	The Government recognise that Libya, following its decision to renounce weapons of mass destruction, has legitimate defence requirements. The United Kingdom has a clear interest in developing an open and co-operative relationship with Libya on defence matters. During his visit to Libya on 25 March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the appointment of General Robin Searby as the United Kingdom Defence Co-ordinator for Libya in order to offer Libya a new military relationship with the United Kingdom. As a natural part of progress towards full normalisation of the United Kingdom's relations with Libya, the Government intend to respond to Libyan requests to discuss their legitimate defence requirements in detail.
	The Government welcome news of Libyan and German agreement on a compensation package for the victims of the 1986 La Belle disco bombing as a significant milestone in the process of rebuilding the United Kingdom's and the European Union's relations with Libya. In light of this agreement, the United Kingdom expects to revisit the issue of the EU arms embargo imposed on Libya in 1986 with EU partners over coming months. If the embargo were removed, the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria (which apply to all countries) would be the test against which any proposed export of defence equipment to Libya would be assessed.
	While the embargo remains in place, all contact with Libya in this area must fall within the terms of the EU arms embargo and United Kingdom law. This means that no commitments in relation to the actual supply of licensable defence equipment will be made while the embargo is in place.

European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights

Jack Straw: At the European Council in Brussels on 17–18 June 2004, EU Heads of Government agreed to include the charter of fundamental rights as part II of the constitutional treaty. This statement sets out the Government's views on the charter of fundamental rights.
	Changes to the European Union charter of fundamental rights, which make it suitable for incorporation into the treaties.
	The EU charter was agreed at Nice in 2000 as a political declaration, not as treaty law. At the same time, the European Council agreed that
	"in accordance with the Cologne conclusions, the question of the charter's force would be considered later"—
	conclusions of the Nice European Council reference 00/1843, deposited in the Library of the House on 11 December 2000. Her Majesty's Government made it clear that we could not agree to incorporation of the charter into the treaties without further legal clarification of its meaning and application. In the White Paper "A Constitutional Treaty for the EU", Cm 5934 of September 2003, Her Majesty's Government said we would make a final decision on incorporation of the charter into the constitutional treaty only in the light of the overall picture at the IGC.
	The charter, including its original preamble, and its own special rules of application and interpretation, is now part II of the constitutional treaty, and is introduced by article I-7(1) of the treaty. Article I-7 deals with fundamental rights generally. Besides introducing the charter, article I-7(1) acknowledges the distinction made in the charter between rights and principles. Human rights and other fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and in the constitutional traditions common to all the member states remain general principles of EU law (see article I-7(3)) and insofar as the charter affirms such rights, they will be interpreted in accordance with the ECHR. Article I-7(2) enables the Union to accede to the ECHR in its own right.
	Significant amendments have been made to articles II-51 and II-52 in title VII of the charter, now entitled "General Provisions Governing the Interpretation and Application of the Charter". The charter applies to the Union—its institutions, agencies and bodies—and, though only when they are implementing Union law, to the member states. Paragraph (1) of article II-51 has been further clarified to show that the charter does not entail any extension of the Union's competences or any extension of the scope of its application for member states. Paragraph (2) of article II-51 also confirms that the charter does not have the effect of extending the scope of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union as established in the other parts of the constitutional treaty.
	Article II-52 deals with interpretation, and significantly improves the original charter provisions. It indicates that there are four sources for the content of the charter's rights, freedoms and principles: provisions of EU law, the ECHR, the constitutional traditions common to the member states and national law. Under article II-52(2), charter articles based on existing EU law are to be read subject to the conditions and limits set out in the constitutional treaty; that is, they are effectively subordinated to their legal base in other parts of the constitution. Under article II-52(3), rights in the charter that correspond to rights in the ECHR have the same meaning and scope as given by the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court. Article I-7(2) on EU accession to the ECHR will help ensure consistency of jurisprudence as between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.
	Under article II-52(4), those charter provisions which draw upon the common constitutional traditions of the member states must be interpreted "in harmony" with such traditions.
	Article II-52(6) emphasises the respect to be given to "national laws and practices", as referred to in the charter provisions.
	Article II-52(5) is aimed at clarifying the distinction the charter makes between legally enforceable rights on the one hand, and the principles, of an aspirational nature, on the other, which are to be found mainly in the solidarity title of the charter. Principles are designed to guide the actions of the Union institutions, and of the member states when implementing Union law. The Union must observe principles by virtue of article II-51(1) when deciding whether to exercise its competences; but there is no obligation to legislate, and the charter itself generates no additional powers to do so. Principles apply within the limitations set out in article II-51(2).
	Finally, a further new horizontal article, article II-52(7), has been added to the constitutional treaty. Article II-52(7) requires the charter to be interpreted with due regard to the official explanations, which address the legal bases for each of the charter's provisions. The explanations have been updated and strengthened and are the subject of a special declaration by the member states which ensures that they are published with the new treaty. The official explanations constitute an authoritative guide to the legal meaning of the charter's provisions and will help ensure that the charter is not misinterpreted.
	Whether incorporation of the European Union charter of fundamental rights into the treaties will increase the powers of the European Union
	Incorporation of the European Union charter of fundamental rights into the treaties will not increase the powers of the European Union. The charter of fundamental rights must be read as a whole, including the general provisions governing the interpretation and application of the charter, as set out in articles II-51 to 53 of the charter. Article II-51(2) provides that the charter does not extend the scope of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined by the other parts of the constitutional treaty.
	The benefits to the United Kingdom of the European Union charter of fundamental rights
	Although fundamental rights, freedoms and principles are guaranteed by the Governments of the member states in accordance with national law, there was no statement of rights, etc. binding the European Union. The charter sets out such a statement for the Union. Following incorporation of the charter, the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union will be bound to recognise those rights, etc. in exercising any of their powers. The charter should help ensure that citizens' basic rights and liberties are protected at EU level, as they are in their own countries.
	The effect of Article H-28 of the charter of fundamental rights upon the laws governing industrial relations in the United Kingdom
	In practice, article II-28 of the charter of fundamental rights will have no effect upon the laws governing industrial relations in the United Kingdom. Article II-28 states that workers and employers enjoy rights of collective bargaining and action
	"in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices".
	There is no Union law in this area, nor could there be in future. EU action on pay, the right of association, the right to strike and the right to impose lock-outs is specifically excluded—see article III-104(6) of the constitutional treaty. Charter article II-52(6) provides that full account should be taken of national laws and practices as specified in the charter. As with all the charter provisions, and by virtue of article II-52(7), it is important to read article II-28 alongside the official explanation, which in this instance points out that
	"The modalities and limits for the exercise of collective action, including strike action, come under national laws and practices".
	The United Kingdom's laws governing industrial relations maintain a balance between workers' rights to pursue legitimate trade disputes and employers' rights to conduct their businesses without undue disruption from illegitimate strike action. Article II-28 will not alter that balance.

Diplomatic Missions: Outstanding National Non-domestic Rate Bills

Jack Straw: The majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom meet their obligations and pay the national non-domestic rate (NNDR) requested from them. The total amount outstanding from all diplomatic missions is approximately £980,000. However, as at 31 July 2004 missions listed below owed over £10,000 in respect of NNDR. Twelve additional diplomatic missions, who owe £10,000 or more in respect of national non-domestic rates, have made arrangements with the valuation office agency to clear their outstanding debts and have not been included in this list.
	
		
			 Country Amount 
		
		
			 Mozambique £33,718,35 
			 Cameroon £32,640,33 
			 Zimbabwe £31,778,64 
			 Uganda £30,892,13 
			 Egypt £26,674,46 
			 Bangladesh £25,948,51 
			 China £25,241,49 
			 Côte d'Ivoire £20,788,06 
			 Senegal £19,198,79 
			 Saudi Arabia £14,400,70 
			 Yemen Republic £13,582,61 
			 Total £274,864,07

Diplomatic Missions: Serious Offences

Jack Straw: From a community of around 20,000 in the United Kingdom entitled to immunity, 16 serious offences, allegedly committed by such persons, were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2003. Serious offences are defined in accordance with the 1985 White Paper on Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges—that is as offences that would in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment.

Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Traffic Fines

Jack Straw: There were 4,565 outstanding parking and other minor traffic violation fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisation in the United Kingdom recorded during the year 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003. These totalled £407,950.00. In May this year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to all affected diplomatic missions and international organisation giving them the opportunity either to pay their outstanding fines or to appeal against them if they considered that the fines had been issued incorrectly. As a result payments totalling £49,280.00 were received, leaving a total of 3,941 (£350,170.00) unpaid fines for 2003. The table below details those diplomatic missions and international organisations that have 11 or more undisputed fines unpaid.
	
		
			 Diplomatic Mission/International Organisation No. of finesoutstanding Amount in £ 
		
		
			 Libya 365 34,480.00 
			 Saudi Arabia 264 24,200.00 
			 Nigeria 232 15,850.00 
			 Georgia 172 16,460.00 
			 China 160 14,080.00 
			 Kazakhstan 146 13,670.00 
			 Turkey 116 10,410.00 
			 Egypt 115 10,930.00 
			 Ghana 106 9,650.00 
			 Greece 94 8,230.00 
			 Senegal 93 8,680.00 
			 United Arab Emirates 92 7,900.00 
			 Angola 87 7,380.00 
			 Kuwait 85 8,270.00 
			 France 78 6,370.00 
			 Afghanistan 76 7,370.00 
			 Russia 75 6,980.00 
			 Algeria 72 6,780.00 
			 Jordan 71 6,660.00 
			 Yemen 60 5,110.00 
			 Malaysia 59 5,720.00 
			 Oman 58 3,830.00 
			 Hungary 56 5,500.00 
			 Kenya 44 4,200.00 
			 Brunei 41 3,920.00 
			 Iran 41 3,280.00 
			 Sudan 40 3,350.00 
			 Rwanda 35 2,650.00 
			 Bahrain 34 3,400.00 
			 Mozambique 34 2,690.00 
			 Germany 32 2,980.00 
			 Brazil 32 2,660.00 
			 Korea (DPR) 31 2,450.00 
			 Uganda 30 2,950.00 
			 Bangladesh 29 2,820.00 
			 Ukraine 29 2,480.00 
			 Tunisia 28 2,590.00 
			 Philippines 28 2,380.00 
			 Poland 27 2,030.00 
			 Tanzania 26 2,370.00 
			 Bulgaria 26 2,350.00 
			 Romania 25 2,300.00 
			 Latvia 24 2,130.00 
			 Zambia 23 2,140.00 
			 Lithuania 22 2,150.00 
			 Morocco 22 2,090.00 
			 Cyprus 22 1,780.00 
			 Guinea 22 1,430.00 
			 Syria 18 1,570.00 
			 Cuba 18 1,440.00 
			 Belgium 16 1,600.00 
			 Fiji 16 1,600.00 
			 Pakistan 16 1,540.00 
			 Vietnam 16 1,540.00 
			 Spain 16 1,220.00 
			 Azerbaijan 15 1,400.00 
			 Thailand 15 1,360.00 
			 Sierra Leone 15 990.00 
			 United States of America 14 1,310.00 
			 Cameroon 14 1,300.00 
			 Jamaica 14 1,280.00 
			 Panama 14 1,240.00 
			 Uzbekistan 12 1,020.00 
			 Zimbabwe 12 710.00 
			 Total 3,720 331,200.00 
		
	
	The number of outstanding fines incurred by diplomatic missions in the UK for non-payment of the London congestion charge at the end of its first year of operation in February 2004 was 1,847. The table below shows the 10 diplomatic missions with the highest number of outstanding fines. 1 Egypt 250 2 U.A.E 182 3 Angola 126 4 Kazakhstan 84 5 Sudan 81 6 Tanzania 72 7 Sierra Leone 66 8 Zimbabwe 52 9 Algeria 50 10 Malawi 50

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Mental Capacity Bill

David Lammy: My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, has made the following written ministerial statement.
	The draft code of practice that supports the Mental Capacity Bill has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Mental Capacity Bill, when it is being considered at Commons Committee stage will be informed by having the draft code available. (We are not in parliamentary terms scrutinising the code itself). The code gives a greater level of detail on many of the Bill's provisions and demonstrates how we think those acting under the Bill will need to be guided when putting these provisions into practice.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

State Opening of Parliament

Peter Hain: The State Opening of Parliament will be on Tuesday 23 November. I plan to announce the date of prorogation as soon as I am able.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Tourist Board

Barry Gardiner: The Northern Ireland Tourist Board's 2002–03 annual report and accounts were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses today.